Really,

just to express that I never got in this abysmal mechanic in D&D, and I really don't get it in a computer game.
Awful choice.

Why? It makes sense that if you try to run past someone with a melee weapon, he'll be able to get in a free attack on you. As someone who did fencing for a while, I can tell you it's completely realistic.

Plus not having AoO would make simply going after the archer or mage in the back way too easy.

I like it, makes it possible to cover more than just the square you're standing on. Besides, you have means of dodging AOO

I think attacks of opportunity work fine in this game. Thought they were absolutely ridiculous in DnD where they are avoided by 5ft steps - seriously? Do people realize just how large a 5ft step is? You'd think thats when you do get hit :P

I never really thought about before, but you're totally right. You'd have to like stretch you leg way out behind you while holding your guard and then make the step with your other leg. Guess that's one of the reasons I don't usually play with a battlemap.

If you are engaged by one opponent I really don't see how you can attack someone that run behind you.
If you are locked in melee combat an army could pass behind you. Really.

If you want to backoff an attacker you don't turn and run, leaving you menace a free shot. You...back up.

Besides I don't understand very well parry: it seems that even "blocked" attack accrue some damage.

Which is done in game by using the tactical move (which does not trigger attacks of opportunity, but "eats" this turn's action : You're backing off with your guard up, and not charging some other dude)

For the "block", the tooltip says a shield has 25% chance to block 25% of the damages. So it's somewhat underwhelming, but it adds up wit the soldier's armor to make the "sword and board" users a pain to bring down, in my experience.

Yes, but I don't like even this solution.
The general impression is of freezed, cumbersome battlefield.
I could used other trick to impede the dodging charger amidst enemy. Meh.
I've conducted only three or four combat but I can't bear "conquistadores" that block with metal shields club armed primitive just to be damaged anyways.


This game honestly is good.
The combat system, imho, is much worse of what I hoped.

What solution did you have in mind? Because, quite honestly, the "control zone" with free attacks (or "tackle zone" for bloodbowl geezers like myself) is a time-honored method for hindering the movements and allowing terrain control and defensive play in turn based games. It's THE classic. Doesn't mean it can't be done otherwise, just that it's a good way to do it.

And I just realized that the combat movement in conquistador feel very much like bloodbowl. Must be why I took to it this easily. Other parts feel clumsy (like the semi-uselessness of firearms), but that part feels quite right for me. Allows to develop some simple tactical thinking, rather than the zerg-rush and firepower/number dominance of so many other games :)

Nah, it's quite different from Blood Bowl, movement can be splitted, melee attacks always connect and there is only one attack of opportunity, which is quite refreshing but painfully unituitive in my opinon.

The shield-block thing is strange but otherwise the sword would be too strong a choice for each player.

I personally find the hunters' double-shoot feature (lvl2 ability) obsolete.

With a single shot you have -let's say- 80% chance to hit a target (I normally tend to have around 80% chance to hit)
With doubleshot you have 50% each hit.
Thus, hitting twice means you have 25%, hitting only once is 50% percent and hitting both targets is 25% again. For a "special ability" with cooldown and all it feels pretty "meh"...

Hitting (at least) once is 75% in your hypothesis, no? 25% to miss both shots. So it's 75% of hitting at least once, and 25% of hitting twice. Not stellar, but better than the single shot.
I agree the doubleshot is somewhat a "shot in the dark", especially if you are under 75-80% (darkness, cover, etc...). But it gets better when you have the perk that gives a flat +5 bonus each time you shoot at the same target.

Yes, probably wasting/investing perks that synergize with "double-shot" might increase its effectiveness.

I normaly use it at point blank range with the "Always Criticial when directly in front of an enemy" perk.
Thus the enemy only gets once chance to strike back and with 25% double critical hit you have a respectable possiblity to outright kill the opponent with one action.

For me hunters worked great. As I was setting up choke-points with barricades, allowing only one enemy through at a time, I needed hunters to maximise my damage in such situations. And with "Walk your shot" for the bonus on to hit after each shot and double shot, hunters very quickly worke up to the max to hit chance.

I agree that hunters are very good in most situations, provided you pick some of the perks that are OP for them, like Walk your shots.
Considering they're your only decent ranged option, there are fights where you want as many as possible (defensive fights where you can use barricades to prevent melee enemies from rushing you), while there are others where you don't want any. Which means they're pretty well balanced imo.

You also have to keep in mind that promotions affect hunters more than anyone else, since it boosts both their chance to hit and their damage. I had a lieutenant hunter at the end of the game, and he had a 92% base chance to hit with good damage. He was probably my unit with the highest kill count, and I don't think he ever got injured.

My lieutneant was a soldier, but my seargents were a hunter and a doctor. (the three characters in my expedition who were narcisists ;) ) My hunter's to hit chance was only slightly below yours and with Walk your shot it got to that very quickly.

Another thing which really came in suprisingly handy at times was the hunter's kick. I used a lot of oil lamps to set the battlefield ablaze. when enemies ran out of the fire, my hunters kicked them back in :P